This is the prequel to the above video, if anyone is interested.

("Makes a lot of dough" --the baker is rich, the lawyer has a flour and yeast fetish.)

Who are you creating the analogy video for, by the way? It seems way too complicated, confusing and not very explanatory for someone who might be confused about/not clear on what analogies are--a simple general dictionary definition accompanied by a few examples would do much better there, and it seems maybe a bit patronizing, yet not very clear in terms of purpose, for anyone who'd understand most of what you're saying.

Terrapin:

General audience. The intended prerequisite for understanding the analogy video is that you've watched and understood the univocity video. I'm aware that some of the stuff in the analogy video still may be confusing, but I'm going to make a video on each of the three types of analogy which I hope will clear things up.

Which parts did you find too complicated, confusing and not very explanatory?

I didn't personally find any of it confusing, etc.

What I was rather thinking of was someone who says, "Wait--what's the difference between an analogy and a metaphor again?" And then they go to youtube and see your video.

I don't like the video. What I like is when people write stuff. It's sort of like when I go to a news site and I have to watch the newscaster tell me what's going on instead of being able to read it. I don't like that. That's sort of a comparison, maybe you'd think it an analogy, I don't really know. In any event, if people start posting their stuff in video format, that'll be just one more annoying thing I'll have to deal with.

Hanover:

If you don't want the video, then you certainly don't have to watch it. In fact, I find it strange that you would even comment in a such a thread at all.

The "script" for the video was slightly more than 3 double-spaced pages long. Do you really have a strong preference for reading that as opposed to hearing it? Also, there's more content in the video than the script.

I have to agree with Hanover, written format is much easier to interact with. I also need to know what makes you an authority on the topic.

Terrapin:

LOL. What's funny is that I actually am going to cover metaphor in the video I make on the analogy of proper proportionality.

Jeremiah:

An authority on analogy? I wouldn't call myself an authority on the topic. I did take a grad course on it. Does that count?

Terrapin:

I do have to admit though. The thought of a high school student going onto youtube wanting to remember what the difference between metaphor and analogy is, watching my videos, and then going to school the next day:

Teacher: Alright, Jimmy, do you know what an analogy is?

Jimmy: Well you see, analogy is an analogous term, and according to the Angelic Doctor, there are three senses in which a term can be analogous. The most proper significate of the term is the analogy of proper proportionality, which involves both ontological and conceptual identity-in-difference...

The teacher then begins taking notes...

...That thought .that thought makes me giggle.

I wouldn't call myself an authority on the topic. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

Then it is a waste of my time. Why don't I just go read work form someone that is an authority on it?

How do you understand "authority"? Do I know what I'm talking about? To the extent necessary for the content of the videos? Yes.

Are there objective "credentials" that I can point to which would support my claim that I know what I'm talking about? Yes.

Have I published on the topic? No.

Either way, quit trolling. If you don't want to watch the video or talk about the subject matter, then find another thread to have a discussion in.

How do you understand "authority"? Do I know what I'm talking about? To the extent necessary for the content of the videos? Yes.

Are there objective "credentials" that I can point to which would support my claim that I know what I'm talking about? Yes.

Have I published on the topic? No.

Either way, quit trolling. If you don't want to watch the video or talk about the subject matter, then find another thread to have a discussion in. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

"How do you understand "authority"?"

I thought you went to college. . . .

Didn't they teach the difference between a good source and a bad source? Good sources tell you exactly who wrote it, what their qualification are, and what their source were. If you don't include that info, then how can I determine if you are a quality source of information? You are some random person on the net; I don't know who you are.

I did start to watch your vid, but then I asked myself "Who is the ThePhilosopherFromDixie, and how can I be sure the info in this vid is good?"

Get upset all you want, but it was your mistake; if you have credentials use them, or else how am I suppose to separate your vid from the millions of other trash vids on youtube? Before I invest time in anything I want to know where it is coming from.

Fair enough. I'm ABD for a philosophy Ph.D. Heaviest areas of competence are medieval and classical philosophy.

The analogy material falls under my competence with medieval and classical philosophy.

Hmm, the videos were fine, but I was surprised that you didn't really go into the scholastic context in which these terms were defined: i.e. univocity/equivocity/analogy as differing takes on the relation between God and creation. I think that without this background, it becomes quite hard to understand the relavence of such themes, as well as making it hard to pursue further reading. These just so much to discuss - I'm thinking here Aristotle, Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, and Meister Eckhart for example - that it's a shame that it's not in your videos. I understand they're meant to be introductory, but there's room for them to be far more interesting than they currently are.

For any interested, here's the next installment.

The teacher then begins taking notes...

...That thought .that thought makes me giggle. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

I think it would be funnier if the teacher would just say (and write down), "F" ;-)

For someone on a philosophy forum, that strikes me as uncharitable...and that's all I have to say on that matter.



I'm aware that there's not much context, etc. in the videos, mainly because I wanted to keep it short and relatively uncomplicated. I figure that if I do videos on metaphysics later, I could just say: "By the way, watch those analogy videos first."

As far as the authors you mentioned: I haven't actually read any Meister Eckhart, though I am aware of him from people like Etienne Gilson. I've heard of Nicholas of Cusa, but I don't really know what his doctrines are.

For someone on a philosophy forum, that strikes me as uncharitable...and that's all I have to say on that matter. — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

There's a serious point there, though, and that's that someone answering that way in that context would be demonstrating that they do not at all understand context. This is what I was getting at earlier. Your video has an indeterminate audience. It doesn't actually provide a simple, straightforward definition of what an analogy is for someone who doesn't know or isn't sure, and a relatively simple, straightforward definition is what the student trying to tackle the difference between metaphor and analogy needs, and that would be what the teacher is asking for. A student answering with the content of your video would be demonstrating that they don't understand context, scope, etc.--they wouldn't grasp the idea of what's an appropriate answer for the context.

On the other hand, for someone like me and many of the other folks who frequent this board, your video is both a bit patronizing at times--it covers material that's fairly rudimentary as if we weren't familiar with that material--but it's also not clear for an audience of philosophers just what the point of the video is. It's not that we don't know what analogies are, and it's not that you're simply, straightforwardly defining what analogies are. You don't set forth a clear thesis at the start as to why you're going to be talking about analogies in a style appropriate for people who have studied at least some philosophy (or related fields for this topic, like LitCrit for example).

So when you're creating something like this, you need to ask yourself:

(1) Who do I expect my audience to be? --the content needs to differ depending on your answer to that.

and

(2) What is the aim of this video relative to (1)? What am I trying to clearly explain or argue for? What issue or problem am I tackling, from what perspective? Make that clear at the start of your presentation.

Well, I may not prefer videos but it's ALL philosophy so for that reason you should continue.

Thanks for your stamp of approval! 8-)

Alright, here's the next installment. You guys may actually find this one interesting. It's on the analogy of attribution. This covers cases like "medical" and "healthy."

They are all tools - you can use them as sugar to help the medicine go down (whether you medicine is snake oil or not), or you can use them for color to maintain attention (though not understanding - analogies are distracting), or you can use them to obfuscate (for whatever devious purpose - keeping mindless followers in the dark).

Your videos were incomprehensible, but I did look-up the obscure terms, and found them in religious contexts - meaning your intent is probably to 'spread the word' through colorful analogy, like orators did 2000 years ago,and whether 'the word' itself is true or the preposterous imaginings of primitive minds, and where you will then be recognized as a 'fine orator' (by whomever you need to impress).